Pile Design in Clay Soils

32.1 Introduction

There are two types of forces acting on piles. See Fig. 32.1.

Figure 32.1 Skin friction in clay soil

1. End bearing acts on the b o t t o m of the pile.

2. Skin friction acts on the sides of the pile.
426 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

To compute the total load that can be applied to a pile, one needs
to compute the end bearing and the skin friction acting on the sides of
the pile.
The modified Terzaghi bearing capacity equation is used to find the
pile capacity.

Pu = Qu + Su
Pu=9•215215215

where

Pu = ultimate pile capacity

Qu = ultimate end bearing capacity
Su = ultimate skin friction
c= cohesion of the soil
Ac = cross-sectional area of the pile
Ap = perimeter surface area of the pile
ct = adhesion factor between pile and soil

As per the above equation, clay soils with a higher cohesion have a
higher end bearing capacity. The end bearing capacity of piles in clayey
soils is usually taken to be 9 x c.

32.1.1 Skin Friction

Assume a block is placed on a clay surface. Now if a force is applied to
move the block, the adhesion between the block and the clay resists
the movement. If the cohesion of clay is c, t h e n the force due to
adhesion would be ct x c (where c~ is the adhesion coefficient). See
Fig. 32.2.

Figure 32.2 Cohesive forces

Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 427

= adhesion coefficient depending on pile material and clay type

c - cohesion

Highly plastic clays would have a higher adhesion coefficient. Typ-

ically, it is assumed that adhesion is not d e p e n d e n t on the weight of
the block. This is not strictly true as explained later.
Now let's look at a pile outer surface. See Fig. 32.3.

ultimate skin friction = Su - ~ x c x Ap

T S

Adhesion b e t w e e n soil and pile = a • c

Figure 32.3 Adhesion

Usually it is assumed that ultimate skin friction is i n d e p e n d e n t of

the effective stress and depth. In reality, the skin friction is d e p e n d e n t
on the effective stress and cohesion of soil.
The skin friction acts on the perimeter surface of the pile.
For a circular pile, the surface area of the pile is given by

zrxDxL

where

Jr x D - circumference of the pile

L = length of the pile

perimeter surface area of a circular pile, Ap -- zr x D x L

428 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

32.2 End Bearing Capacity in Clay Soils, Different

Methods
32.2.1 Driven Piles
Skempton (1959)

The equation proposed by Skempton is widely being used to find the

end bearing capacity in clay soils.
q=9XCu

where
q = end bearing capacity
Cu = cohesion of soil at the tip of the pile

Martin et al. (1987)

q--c x N MN/m 2

where
c =0.20
N --SPT value at pile tip

32.2.2 Bored Piles

Shioi and Fukui (1982)

q--c x N MN/m 2

where
c=0.15
N - S P T value at pile tip

NAVFAC DM 7.2 (1984)

q=9XCu
where
q = end bearing capacity
r = cohesion of soil at the tip of the pile
Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 429

32.3 Skin Friction in Clay Soils (Different Methods)

The equations are based on u n d r a i n e d shear strength (cohesion)

fult = c~ • Su

where
skin friction
f u l t -- u l t i m a t e
c~= skin friction coefficient
Su = u n d r a i n e d shear strength or cohesion

Su = Qu/2

where
Qu = unconfined compressive strength

These types of equations ignore effective stress effects. See Fig. 32.4.

S~

Figure 32.4 Mohr's circle diagram

32.3.1 Driven Piles

American Petroleum Institute (API)

API (1984) provides the following equation to find the skin friction in
clay soils.
f = o t x Cu

f = unit skin friction

Cu - cohesion
430 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

u - 1.0 for clays with Cu <25 k N / m 2 (522 psf)

= 0.5 for clays with Cu >70 k N / m 2 (1,460psf)

Interpolate for the ~ value for cohesion values between 25 k N / m 2

and 70 kN/m 2.
Per the API method, the skin friction is solely d e p e n d a n t on cohe-
sion. Effective stress changes with the depth and the API m e t h o d
disregard the effective stress effects in soil.

NAVFAC DM 7.2

f =a•

S - skin friction
Cu - cohesion
Ap = perimeter surface area of the pile

See Table 32.1. As in the API method, the effective stress effects are
neglected in the DM 7.2 method.

Table 32.1 Pile type, cohesion, and adhesion

Pile type Soil consistency Cohesion range
(kN/m 2)

Timber and
concrete piles
Very soft 0-12 0-1.0
Soft 12-24 1.0-0.96
Medium stiff 24-48 0.96-0.75
Stiff 48-96 0.75-0.48
Very stiff 96-192 0.48-0.33
Steel piles
Very soft 0-12 0.0-1.0
Soft 12-24 1.0-0.92
Medium stiff 24-48 0.92-0.70
Stiff 48-96 0.70-0.36
Very stiff 96-192 0.36-0.19
Source:NAVFACDM 7.2 (1984).
Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 431

32.3.2 Bored Piles

Fleming et al. (1985)
f=axcu

f = u n i t skin friction
Cu - c o h e s i o n

a - 0.7 for clays w i t h Cu <25 k N / m 2 (522 psf)

- 0.35 for clays w i t h Cu > 7 0 k N / m 2 (1,460psf)

Note t h a t the u value for bored piles is c h o s e n to be 0.7 times the

value for driven piles.
The e q u a t i o n s are based o n the vertical effective stress
!
fult = fl X rY

where
fult = u l t i m a t e skin friction
/J = skin friction coefficient based o n effective stress
r~' - effective stress

These types of e q u a t i o n s ignore cohesion effects.

Burland (1973)
!
f--~xa v

where
f - - u n i t skin friction
O"v' - effective stress

/ ~ - ( 1 - sinr x tanr x (OCR) ~

where

OCR = overconsolidation ratio of clay

The Burland m e t h o d does n o t consider the c o h e s i o n of soil. One

could argue t h a t the OCR is indirectly related to cohesion.
432 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rulesof Thumb

32.3.3 Equation Based on Both Cohesion and Effective Stress

A new method was proposed by Kolk and Van der Velde (1996) that
considers both cohesion and effective stress to compute the skin
friction of piles in clay soils.

Kolk and Van der Velde Method (1996)

The Kolk a n d Van der Velde m e t h o d considers b o t h c o h e s i o n a n d

effective stress.
fult -- o/x Su

where
fult = u l t i m a t e skin friction
= skin friction coefficient

In this case, the skin friction coefficient, c~, is o b t a i n e d using the

correlations provided by Kolk a n d Van der Velde. The p a r a m e t e r a is
based o n b o t h cohesion and effective stress.

Su = u n d r a i n e d shear strength (cohesion)

The p a r a m e t e r a in the Kolk a n d Van der Velde e q u a t i o n is based

o n the ratio of u n d r a i n e d shear strength a n d effective stress. A large
database of pile skin friction results was analyzed a n d correlated to
o b t a i n the a values. See Table 32.2.
According to Table 32.2, a decreases w h e n Su increases, a n d c~
increases w h e n or' (effective stress) increases.

Design Example 32.1

Find the skin friction of the I ft diameter pile s h o w n in Fig. 32.5 using
the Kolk a n d Van der Velde m e t h o d .

Table 32.2 Skin friction factor

Suit~ 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
0.95 0.77 0.7 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.48
Su/Cr' 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.0 4.0
a 0.47 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.4 0.39 0.39

Source: Kolk and Van der Velde (1996).

Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 433

Clay
Cohesion = 1,000 psf 15 ft (4.5 m)
(47.88 kPa)
y = 110 pcf (17.3 kN/m 3)

Figure 32.5 Skin friction in clay

Solution

The Kolk a n d Van der Velde m e t h o d d e p e n d s o n b o t h effective

stress a n d cohesion. The effective stress varies w i t h the depth. Hence,
it is necessary to o b t a i n the average effective stress along the pile
length. In this case, obtain the effective stress at t h e m i d p o i n t of
the pile.

effective stress at the m i d p o i n t of the pile = 110 x 7.5 psf

= 825 psf (39.5 kPa)

cohesion - Su - 1,000 psf (47.88 kPa)

Su/a'- 1 , 0 0 0 / 8 2 5 - 1.21

From Table 32.2,

= 0.5 for Sula' = 1.2

Hence use

o~ = 0 . 5
u l t i m a t e u n i t skin friction - a x Su = 0.5 x 1,000
= 500 psf (23.9 kPa)
u l t i m a t e skin friction of the pile - 500 x (zr x d x L)
= 500 x ~r x 1 x 151b
= 23,562 lb (104.8 kN)
434 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

32.4 Piles in Clay Soils

32.4.1 Skin Friction in Clay Soils
As mentioned in previous chapters, attempts to correlate skin friction
with undrained shear strength were not very successful. A better cor-
relation was found with skin friction and the Su/a' ratio, Su being the
undrained shear strength and a' being the effective stress.
What happens to a soil element when a hole is drilled? See Fig. 32.6.
The following changes occur in a soil element near the wall after the
drilling process.

9 The soil element shown in Fig. 32.6 is subjected to a stress relief. The
undrained shear strength is reduced due to the stress relief.
9 The reduction of undrained shear strength reduces the skin friction
as well.

Figure 32.6 Drilling in soil

32.4.2 Computation of Skin Friction in Bored Piles

The same procedure used for driven piles can be used for bored piles,
but with a lesser undrained shear strength. The question is, how much
reduction should be applied to the undrained shear strength for bored
piles?
The undrained shear strength may be reduced by as much as 50%
due to the stress relief in bored piles. On the other hand, the mea-
sured undrained shear strength is already reduced due to the stress relief
that occurred when the sample was removed from the ground. By the
time the soil sample reaches the laboratory, the soil sample has under-
gone stress relief and the measured value already indicates the stress
reduction. Considering these two aspects, a reduction of 30% in the
undrained shear strength would be realistic for bored piles.
Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 435

Design Example 32.2

This e x a m p l e explores a single pile in a u n i f o r m clay layer. Find t h e

capacity of the pile s h o w n in Fig. 32.7. The l e n g t h of the pile is 10 m,
a n d t h e d i a m e t e r of t h e pile is 0.5 m. The c o h e s i o n of t h e soil is f o u n d
to be 800 psf. Note t h a t the g r o u n d w a t e r level is at 2 rn below the
surface.

Clay

Total density (~,) = 17.5 kN/m 3 (110 pcf) Pile length = 10 rn (32.8 ft)
Cohesion = 50 kN/m 2 (1.04 ksf) Pile diameter = 0.5 m (1.64 ft)
Adhesion factor (e) = 0.75

Figure 32.7 Single pile in clay soil

Solution
STEP 1- Find the e n d b e a r i n g capacity.

e n d b e a r i n g capacity in clay soils - 9 x c x A

c - c o h e s i o n - 50 k N / m 2
Nc-9

A - rr x D 2 / 4 - Jr x 0.52/4 m 2 - 0.196 m 2
u l t i m a t e e n d b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y - 9 x 50 x 0.196 - 88.2 kN (19.8 kip)

STEP 2: Find the skin friction.

u l t i m a t e skin friction - Su - c~ x c x Ap
u l t i m a t e skin friction - 0.75 x 50 x Ap
Ap - p e r i m e t e r surface area of the pile - rr x D x L

= rr x 0.5 x l O m 2
436 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

Ap -- 15.7 m 2
ultimate skin friction = 0.75 x 50 x 15.7 = 588.8 kN (132 kip)

STEP 3: Find the ultimate capacity of the pile.

ultimate pile capacity = ultimate end bearing capacity

+ ultimate skin friction
ultimate pile capacity = 88.2 + 588.8 = 677 kN (152 kip)
allowable pile capacity = ultimate pile capacity/F.O.S.

Assume a factor of safety of 3.0.

allowable pile capacity = 677/3.0 = 225.7 kN (50.6 kip)

Note that the skin friction was very much higher than the end
bearing capacity in this situation.

Design Example 32.3

This example explores a single pile in a uniform clay layer with ground-
water present. Find the allowable capacity of the pile shown in Fig. 32.8.
The pile diameter is given as 1 m and the cohesion of the clay layer
is 35 kPa. The groundwater level is 2 m below the surface. Find the
allowable capacity of the pile.

GW
I .... I 2 m (6.56 ft)

Clay 12 m (39.4 ft)

Total density (7) = 17 kN/m3 (108 pcf)

Clay cohesion = 35 kPa (730 psf)

\/

Figure 32.8 Skin friction (groundwater considered)

Chapter 32 PileDesign in Clay Soils 437

Solution
Unlike the case for sands, the groundwater level does not affect the skin
friction in clayey soils.

STEP 1" F i n d t h e e n d b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y .

e n d b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y i n c l a y soils - 9 x c x A

c - c o h e s i o n - 35 k N / m 2

Nc-9

A--JrxD2/4-Jrx 1 2 / 4 m 2-0.785m 2

u l t i m a t e e n d b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y - 9 x 35 x 0 . 7 8 5

= 2 4 7 . 3 k N (55.5 kip)

STEP 2" F i n d t h e s k i n f r i c t i o n .

u l t i m a t e s k i n f r i c t i o n - Su - u x c x Ap

T h e a d h e s i o n factor, c~, is n o t g i v e n . Use t h e m e t h o d g i v e n b y API.

c~ - 1.0 for clays w i t h c o h e s i o n < 2 5 k N / m 2

u - 0.5 for clays w i t h c o h e s i o n > 7 0 k N / m 2

Since t h e c o h e s i o n is 35 k N / m 2, i n t e r p o l a t e t o o b t a i n t h e a d h e s i o n
factor, u.

(x - 1.0) / (35 - 25) = (x - 0 . 5 ) / ( 3 5 - 70)

(x - 1 . 0 ) / 1 0 - (x - 0 . 5 ) / - 35 - 35x + 35 - lOx - 5

45x - 40

x - 0.89

H e n c e u at 35 k N / m 2 is 0.89.

u l t i m a t e s k i n f r i c t i o n - 0 . 8 9 x 35 x Ap

Ap - p e r i m e t e r s u r f a c e a r e a of t h e pile - Jr x D • L

=Jrxl.0x12m 2
438 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

Ap - 37.7 m 2
ultimate skin friction = 0.89 • 35 • 37.7 kN
ultimate skin friction = 1,174.4 kN (264 kip)

STEP 3: Find the ultimate capacity of the pile.

ultimate pile capacity = ultimate end bearing capacity

+ ultimate skin friction
ultimate pile capacity = 247.3 + 1,174.4 = 1,421.7 kN
allowable pile capacity = ultimate pile capacity/F.O.S.

Assume a factor of safety of 3.0.

allowable pile capacity = 1,421.7/3.0 = 473.9 kN (106.6 kip)

Design Example 32.4

In this example, the skin friction is calculated using the Kolk and Van
der Velde method. A 3 m sand layer is underlain by a clay layer with
cohesion of 25 kN/m 2. Find the skin friction of the pile within the
clay layer. Use the Kolk and Van der Velde method. The density of
both sand and clay are 17 kN/m 3. The diameter of the pile is 0.5 rn.
See Fig. 32.9.

Figure 32.9 Pile in multiple layers

Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 439

Solution
Find the skin friction at the top of the clay layer a n d the b o t t o m of the
clay layer. O b t a i n the average of the two values.

STEP 1 - F i n d S u / ~ ' .
At p o i n t A:

c r ' - 3 x 1 7 - 5 1 k N / m 2 (1,065 lb/ft 2)

Su - 25 k N / m 2

S u / c r ' - 25/51 - 0.50

From Table 32.2, c~ - 0.65.

At p o i n t B"

cr'-6 x 17- 102 k N / m 2

Su - 25 k N / m 2

Su/cr' - 2 5 / 1 0 2 - 0.25

From Table 32.2, a - 0.86.

STEP 2: Find the total skin friction.
Ultimate skin friction at p o i n t A:

fult--cg • S u - 0.65 x 2 5 - 16 k N / m 2

Ultimate skin friction at p o i n t B:

fult - cg • Su - 0.86 • 25 - 21 k N / m 2

Assume the average of two points to o b t a i n the total skin friction.

average - (16 + 21)/2 - 18.5 k N / m 2

total skin friction - 18.5 x (perimeter) x l e n g t h

= 18.5 x (Jr x 0.5) x 3

= 87 kN (19.6 kip)

See Table 32.3 for a s u m m a r y of the equations.

440 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

Table 32.3 Summary of equations

Sand* Clay*
Pile end bearing capacity Nq xcrv x A 9xcxA
Pile unit skin friction K x Crv x t a n ~ x Ap e x c x Ap

*A = b o t t o m cross-sectional area of the pile; Ap = perimeter surface area of the

pile; ~v = vertical effective stress; Nq = Terzaghi bearing capacity factor; c -
c o h e s i o n of the soil; K = lateral earth pressure coefficient; e = a d h e s i o n factor;
8 = soil a n d pile friction angle.

32.5 Case Study: Foundation Design Options

D'Appolonia and Lamb (1971) describe the construction of several
buildings at MIT. The soil conditions of the site are given in Fig. 32.10.
Different foundation options were considered for the building.

9 Organic silt was compressible and

\ cannot be used for shallow
Organic silt, some peat 20 ft (6.1 m) foundations.
\ /
/ 9 Sand and gravel was medium dense
Sand and gravel \ 10 ft (3.05 m) and can be used for shallow
\ foundations.
Boston blue clay
9 Upper portion of Boston blue clay
(Upper portion is
was overconsolidated. Lower
over consolidated while lower ! 100 ft (30.5 m)
portion was normally consolidated.
portion is normally
consolidated) 9 Normally consolidated clays settle
appreciably more than
overconsolidated clays.
Glacial Till
\ 9 Glacial Till can be used for end
Shale bearing piles.

Figure 32.10 General soil conditions

32.5.1 General Soil Conditions

Note that all clays start as normally consolidated clays. Overconsol-
idated clays had been subjected to higher pressures in the past than
existing in situ pressures. This happens mainly due to glacier move-
ment, fill placement, and groundwater change. On the other hand,
normally consolidated soils are presently experiencing the largest pres-
sure they have ever experienced. For this reason, normally consolidated
soils tend to settle more than overconsolidated clays.
Chapter 32 PileDesign in ClaySoils 441

32.5.2 Foundation Option 1: Shallow Footing Placed o n

Compacted Backfill
See Fig. 32.11.

Figure 32.11 Shallow footing option

The construction procedure for foundation option 1 was as follows.

9 Organic silt was excavated to the sand and gravel layer.

9 Compacted backfill was placed and the footing was constructed.

This method was used for light loads.

It has been reported that Boston blue clay would settle by more than
4 in. when subjected to a stress of 400psf (Aldrich, 1952). Hence, engi-
neers had to design the footing so that the stress on the Boston blue
clay was less than 400 psf.

32.5.3 Foundation Option 2: Timber Piles Ending on Sand and

Gravel Layer
See Fig. 32.12.
The construction procedure for foundation option 2 was as follows.

9 Foundations were placed on timber piles ending in the sand and

gravel layer.
442 Geotechnical EngineeringCalculationsand Rulesof Thumb

Figure 32.12 Shortpile option

9 Engineers had to make sure that the underlying clay layer was not
stressed excessively due to piles.
This option was used for light loads.
32.5.4 Foundation Option 3: Timber Piles Ending in Boston
Blue Clay Layer
See Fig. 32.13.
The construction procedure for foundation option 3 was as follows.

9 Pile foundations were designed on timber piles ending in Boston

blue clay.
9 This m e t h o d was found to be a mistake, since huge settlement
occurred due to consolidation of the clay layer.

32.5.5 Foundation Option 4: Belled Piers Ending in Sand and

Gravel
See Fig. 32.14.
For foundation option 4, foundations were placed on belled piers
ending in the sand and gravel layer. It is not easy to construct belled
piers in sandy soils. This option had major construction difficulties.
Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 443

Figure 32.13 Medium length piles

Figure 32.14 Short belled caissons

32.5.6 Foundation Option 5: Deep Piles Ending in Till or Shale

See Fig. 33.15.
The construction procedure for foundation option 5 was as follows.
9 Foundations were placed on deep concrete pipe piles ending in till.
9 These foundations were used for buildings with 20 to 30 stories.
444 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

Figure 32.15 Deep piles

9 Their performance was found to be excellent. Settlement readings in

all buildings were less t h a n 1 inch.
9 Closed end concrete filled pipe piles were used. These piles were
selected over H-piles due to their lower cost.
9 During pile driving, adjacent buildings u n d e r w e n t slight upheaval.
After completion of driving, these buildings started to settle. Great
settlement in adjacent buildings within 50 ft of the piles was observed.
9 Measured excess pore water pressures exceeded 40 ft of water column
15 ft away from the pile. Excess pore pressures dropped significantly
after 10 to 40 days.
9 Due to the upheaval of buildings, some piles were preaugured down
to 15 ft, prior to driving. Preauguring reduced the generation of exc-
ess pore water pressures. In some cases, excess pore water pressures
were still unacceptably high.
9 Piles in a group were not driven at the same time. After one pile was
driven, sufficient time was allowed for the pore water pressures to
dissipate prior to driving the next pile.
9 Another solution was to drive the pipe piles open end, and t h e n clean
out the piles. This was found to be costly and time-consuming.
Chapter 32 PileDesign in Clay Soils 445

32.5.7 Foundation Option 6: Floating Foundations Placed on

Sand and Gravel (Rafts)
See Fig. 32.16.

Figure 32.16 Floating foundation

The construction procedure for foundation option 6 was as follows.

9 Mat or floating foundations were placed on sand and gravel.

9 The settlement of floating foundations was larger than deep piles
(option 5).
9 The settlement of floating foundations varied from 1.0 to 1.5 in. The
performance of rafts was inferior to deep piles. The average settlement
in raft foundations was slightly higher than deep footings.
9 There was a concern that excavations for rafts could create settlement
in adjacent buildings. This was found to be a false alarm, since adja-
cent buildings did not undergo any major settlement due to braced
excavations constructed for raft foundations.
9 W h e n the cost of driving deep piles was equal to the cost of raft
foundations, it is desirable to construct raft foundations, since rafts
would allow for a basement.
9 A basement may not be available in the piling option, unless it is
specially constructed with additional funds.
446 Geotechnical Engineering Calculations and Rules of Thumb

See Table 32.4.

Table 32.4 Settlement of buildings

Foundation Bearing Number of Average Settlement

type stratum buildings n u m b e r of
stories

Timber piles Boston blue clay 27 1-6 1-16 in.

Belled caissons Sand and gravel 22 1-8 1-3 in.
Raft foundations Sand and gravel 7 6-20 1-1.5 in.
Deep piles Shale or till 5 6-30 0.5 in.

References

Aldrich, H. P. 1952. Importance of the net load to settlement of buildings in

Boston. Contributions of Soil Mechanics, Boston Society of Civil Engineers.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1984. Recommended practice for planning,
designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms, 15th ed. API RP2A.
Burland, J. B. 1973. Shaft friction of piles in claymA simple fundamental
approach. Ground Engineering, 6(3):30-42.
D'Appolonia, D.J., and Lamb, W. T. 1971. Performance of four foundations on
end bearing piles. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
January.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, W. K. 1985.
Piling Engineering. New York: Halsted Press.
Horn, H. M., and Lamb, T. W. 1964. Settlement of buildings on the MIT campus.
ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, September.
Kolk H. J., and Van der Velde A. 1996. A reliable method to determine friction
capacity of piles driven into clays. Proceedings of the Offshore Technological
Conference, vol. 2.
Martin, R. E., Seli, J. J., Powell, G. W., and Bertoulin, M. 1987. Concrete
pile design in Tidewater, Virginia. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
113(6):568-585.
McCammon, N. R., and Golder, H. G. 1970. Some loading tests on long pipe
piles. Geotechnique, 20(2): 171-184.
Meyerhoff, G. G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 102(3), 195-228.
NAVFAC DM 7.2. 1984. Foundation and earth structures. Washington, DC: US
Department of the Navy.
O'Neill, M. W. 2001. Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts. ASCE Geotech-
nical and Geoenviroenmental Engineering Journal.
Chapter 32 Pile Design in Clay Soils 447

Seed, H. B., and Reese, L. C. 1957. The action of soft clay along friction piles.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 81, Paper 842.
Shioi, Y., and Fukui, J. 1982. Application of "N" value to design of foundations
in Japan. Proceedings of ESOPT2, 159-164.
Skempton, A. W. 1959. Cast-in-situ bored piles in London clay. Geotechnique,
153-173.